Bridges v. Elite, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16097. |
| Parties | BRIDGES v. ELITE, Inc. et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle, of Spartanburg, for appellant.
Norbert A. Theodore, of Columbia, for respondent.
This cause was heard in the circuit court of Spartanburg County on appeal by the defendants, employer and insurance carrier respectively, from an award made by the South Carolina Industrial Commission in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the surviving husband of Eula Mae Bridges, who was killed by Edward Smawley on May 19, 1946. At the time of her death, she was employed as a hostess in a restaurant on East Main Street in the city of Spartanburg, owned and operated by the employer, The Elite, Inc. Prior to her death she was separated from her husband, the claimant. When the hearings were held before the commission on his claim for compensation, he was imprisoned in the state penitentiary and for this reason could not be present.
The circuit court affirmed the award made by the South Carolina Industrial Commission, and this appeal followed.
Appellants contend that the death of Eula Mae Bridges did not constitute an accident arising out of her employment as contemplated by the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. Code 1942 § 7035-1 et seq. It is conceded that it arose in the course of employment. There is no substantial contradiction or dispute in the testimony offered by the parties.
Eula Mae Bridges, the wife of claimant, was shot and killed in the restaurant about 2:30 o'clock p. m. by Edward Smawley, a sailor in the United States Navy, who was at home on leave in Spartanburg. She and Smawley had been childhood sweethearts. Even after her marriage to the claimant they corresponded, and Smawley persistently pursued her with his attentions on every occasion when he was in Spartanburg. It is evident from the record that Eula Mae Bridges wished to terminate this affair, and in consequence thereof Smawley had more than once threatened to kill her.
The deceased had been periodically employed for approximately four years in the restaurant where she was shot and killed by Smawley. For two months prior to her death she was engaged as one of the hostesses in the establishment, and her duties as such consisted primarily in meeting prospective customers as they entered the foyer or vestibule leading to the main room and providing seating arrangements for them.
On Saturday night, the day before she met her death, Smawley saw a Mrs. June Barker seated in an automobile parked on a street in Spartanburg. He knew that she was a friend of Eula Mae, and was also employed in the restaurant as a hostess. He approached Mrs. Barker and told her to tell the deceased, When Mrs. Barker returned to her home she telephoned and told Mrs. Bridges of this threat.
On the next morning (Sunday), Mrs. Barker went to the boarding place of the deceased with reference to the exchange of some clothing. While conversing with her there was a knock at the front door, to which Mrs. Barker responded. Upon opening the door she found Smawley, who inquired for the deceased, stating that he wished to see her. Knowing that Mrs. Bridges was afraid of him, she told him that the deceased was not at home. Whereupon, after some delay, he got into his car and left. Mrs. Barker then left, and reported for work at the restaurant. Upon reaching the restaurant, she telephoned and asked Mrs. Bridges to bring her certain clothing, and Mrs. Bridges replied that she was disinclined to report for work. 'I said, 'We need you.' She said, 'I have a good mind to stay home.''
The restaurant on the Sunday morning in question was in charge of Mr. Panas, who was assistant manager of the employer; he sat at his desk and heard the conversation just referred to, between Mrs. Barker and the deceased. He asked Mrs. Barker whom she was talking with, and she told him. He said, 'Tell her to come to work.' Mrs. Barker did not inform Mr. Panas as to the personal reasons influencing the deceased to stay at home. When the telephone conversation ended, Panas asked Mrs. Barker why the deceased did not wish to come to the restaurant, and she replied: "A boy she used to go with in high school is bothering her;' that is all I said.' Whereupon, Panas replied that if there was any trouble, 'to call the law.'
Mrs. Barker at no time informed Mr. Panas that Smawley had threatened the life of the deceased. Insofar as the record shows, he had never seen Smawley, and did not know that he was a sailor. He was told only that Mrs. Bridges was afraid because this boy, who was formerly her schoolmate, was annoying her. The deceased reported for work at the restaurant at 20 minutes to 12 o'clock, and was engaged in her duties as hotess until about 2 o'clock p. m., when Smawley entered the restaurant and shot her to death with a pistol.
Mrs. Scruggs, a waitress in the restaurant, was an eye witness to the tragedy. She said that she and Mrs. Bridges were standing about the middle of the restaurant, between the kitchen and the front door. She testified: 'A man came up. She (Mrs. Bridges) said, 'Margaret, do you remember the boy I was telling you about?' I said, 'Yes.' She said, 'That's him at the front.' I glanced around and saw a sailor, and she did not say his name. I said, She said, 'I will go on down there; this is it.'' The deceased immediately went to the front of the restaurant and approached the sailor. They appeared to engage in an angry but restrained discussion, which lasted less than a minute. The Smawley pulled his pistol and shot Eula Mae Bridges five times. With the one bullet remaining in his pistol he blew his own brains out.
The first issue for decision raised by appellants is whether or not the accident arose out of the employment.
The words of the statute, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial